"If the Supreme Court reaches a tie on the case, the current award stands and Exxon will have to find another way to screw over the Alaskans."
They could just dump more oil on them. It worked pretty well the last time.

Are you kidding me? Oil companies are posting record profits these last few years, and they're going to let them off for half the original amount? Has it even been paid yet?? This happened almost 20 years ago and they still didn't pay the money????

Please, leave it at the original amount and lets make sure interest is added on to that!!

$1.5B for one of the worst oil spills in US history is "excessive punishment"?

Newsflash, SC Justices! Exxon did irreversible damage to an entire ECOSYSTEM. A $1.5B fine is getting off light.

Less than 3 weeks of their profit?

Hell, if anything they should double the fine, because clearly it wasn't excessive enough!.

Everyone here realizes that it's the end consumer of Exxon's products (YOU!!) that will end up paying for this, right?

@B: Dump more oil on them, then make them wait 20 FUCKING YEARS while they appeal it to high hell. They should tie the damages to the appreciation of the price of a barrel of crude, so they have some incentive to pay it quickly.

By appealing it for twenty years, they made 50% of those damages back due to inflation.

man! FUCK BIG OIL.

Let's hurry up and get those damn fuel-cell cars rolling of the lots in volume. I want to see these fucks out of jobs.

Why couldn't the Gov't be in bed with a girl like everyone else?

$2.5 billion in 1989 probably is $1 billion in 2008 dollars... considering the ridiculous drop in the dollar and all. (Well it feels like it!)

Its slightly dishonest to compare the effects of a 2.5 billion dollar punitive awards against their earnings in the current year. They were laid down in 1989. Just using the CPI's for 1989 and the latest I could find, you'd have to inflate that by 75%. So does a 4.3 billion dollars sound right?

I personally think Exxon-Mobile is arguing the wrong case. Should they be punished (in addition to being held responsible for direct damages) for the actions of their employee?

This is absolutely insane. The damage done by the spill was astronomical. I could understand reducing the penalty if Exxon was tetering on bankruptcy, but oil companies are cleaning up (no pun intended) financially. High gas prices have treated them well.

I...don't even know what to say about this. How stupid can the supreme court be?

"What principles do you have to suggest, if any," the justice asked Mr. Fisher, "for creating a fair system that isn't just arbitrary?"

oooh oooh! I know I know! Binding arbitration!?!

@Tux the Penguin: When said employee was a known alcoholic? When said employee routinely showed up to work drunk?

The design of the ship also contributed significantly to the disaster: The Valdez was a single hull vessel. Once the outer hull was punctured, there was no inner hull to prevent a spill. Yes, this was (and still unfortunately is) the common ship design, but that doesn't mean that it didn't contribute to the accident.

For anyone (including Ralph) who thinks that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, please note that Bush II had two SCOTUS appointments and Stevens and Ginsburg are getting on in years.

This is disgusting and makes me doubly sad. The fact that they're complaining about the fine levied after causing one of the worst ecological disasters in history is sad. Secondly, the fact that $2.5 billion is only three weeks PROFIT to them makes me sad. Gee, I wonder why we're heading for recession.

I know all you people use mass public transportation to reduce your fuel consumption. Since, obviously, the consumer has no control over "Big Oil's" profits.

As for the spill, I agree. They should pay out of their ass.

But lets not complain about high prices without feeling that we need to decrease our demand or as a justification for them to pay.

@bustit22: Fortunately, it's not as if there isn't competition -- mass transit (alas, not practical everywhere) and lots of other gas suppliers.

As for why they are bitching? It's not enough to make a profit anymore. You have to get richer than Uncle Scrooge so you can swim through a bigger money vault than he does.

Bend them over the barrel (pun intended) Exxon has had a RECORD couple of years for profits.

@teh: I think double hulls are now required, although I'm sure there's some older single-hull ships around.

Oh, if only the tanker had 6001 hulls! When will we learn!

The case will probably end in a 4-4 tie and while I am generally sympathetic to oil companies (they are routinely smeared unfairly), they need to take responsibility for their actions. $4.3 Billion would be my decision if I were in charge.

Let's not forget that we're talking about *punitive damages,* not compensatory damages and not fines. Compensatory damages are basically the cost of the clean up plus the economic harm that's been done. Punitive damages, on the other hand, are intended to keep the company from doing it again.

Punitive damages are basically a windfall to the plaintiffs: tort law tries to put the plaintiff back into the position he was in before the accident -- that's compensatory damages. But, they also get to keep punitive damages.

As the article states, Exxon has already paid $3.4 Billion in compensatory damages (including cleanup costs) and criminal fines.

I'm not at all sure that punitives make any sense here. Does anybody believe that Exxon is likely to have another drunk captain piloting one of its supertankers? Or, more precisely, does anybody believe that imposing punitive damages will make Exxon less likely to do so?

Its been almost 20 years and they haven't paid that yet???

@teh: So you want to remove anyone who has a drinking problem from any maritime activities? Considering the stories my grandfather, uncles and cousins (all who work in the oil transport industry aboard these tankers) you wouldn't have enough crew to man 10% of your fleet.

As for single hulls, you have a better point: double hull should be the standard, but they are much more expensive and there is no requirement to use them. Now, would you be willing to pony up all that extra money when you're not required to?

@bustit22: Exxon cannot just raise their prices indiscriminately to cover this cost. They have to operate in a competitive environment. And even if they do raise prices, so what? In the future they might be more careful about environmental protection. The deterrent effect is important.

they oughta fine them half simple....the scumbags............

@cef21: Yes. I do believe the possibility of massive punitive damages will be a deterrent for corporations acting irresponsibly. I bet that possibility makes them more careful in a lot of areas, not just the specific area that led to this accident.

Wait a minute, wasn't there an article link via Consumerist that described how the oil/gas market works? It's pretty complex and confusing for anyone who doesn't understand it. No wonder people scream and howl at the "insane profits."
(found it!) [consumerist.com]

Another thing: People need to look up the term "PROFIT MARGIN". Comparatively speaking, the banking industry has a much wider profit margin than the oil industry. Context people.

Why are they bitching, with the price of gas 2.5 billion is pocket change. I say raise it to 5 billion.

@Tux the Penguin: If I am not mistaken wasnt there an international law that requires all oil tankers to be double hulled by a specific date?

@IamTCM: Yup. I either take the train to work, or ride my bike every season except the winter. If there was an Amtrak route between Chicago and my parent's house, I'd sell my car altogether.

@brent_w:

the punitive damages were already cut in half by a lower court. They have been fighting making any payment at all.

Big business wins again. What else is new? A country for the corporations by the corporations.

yep, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was passed, requiring, among other things, that all oil tankers traveling in U.S. waters be equipped with double hulls.
By the end of 2015, single-hulled ships will be outlawed in U.S. waters under a federal law passed after the wreck of the Exxon Valdez, which spilled 11 million gallons of oil in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989

I think Europe has some sort of law that passed recently as well.

This is sick.

So Breyers is "sympathetic" to the Oil giant, as is Roberts, Thomas will just do what Roberts and Scalia want, and Alito , appointed by Oilman/President Bush, owns "thousands" of shares of Exxon Mobil stock(estimated at between $100,000 and $250,000, according to the PBS NewsHour)
Gee, not very hard to guess the outcome of this one.

from the Washington Post:
Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company -- but that's not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.

The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."

The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.

Exxon should pay for the environmental damage (although it's difficult to quantify environmental problems).

But what benefit is it to anyone to take their profits away just for the sake of taking their profits away? It doesn't make any sense. Everyone is invested in oil in some way. Your retirement portfolio is probably invested in oil. If not, it's likely invested in a company that does invest in oil. Your insurance company invests in oil. If their investments are not profitable, your rates will not go down or they'll increase.

They also don't just sit on these profits while chomping on their cigars. They reinvest it to expand exploration and research more cost-effective technology. Both these things are key to reducing fuel costs.

@chelle29: Apparently he wasn't amused at being called on his own BS?

The fact is, corporations need not worry about these massive punitive damages if they don't break the law and don't act negligently.

@EBounding: It's called "punitive damages." It's punishment for wrongdoing, just like jail time for any petty thief, and is meant as a disincentive for fucking up again. If they're forgiven these damages, they'll have few qualms about repeating their crimes, and any corporation Exxon's size would not hesitate long to commit just about any crime for the sake of profit, if they knew they could get away with it.

from the article:
"The punitive damages would be dispersed to about 33,000 Alaskans, and Exxon is seeking to cut the per-person award from $75,000 to $30,000."

sure some will get money who were in no way affected by the spill, but the majority were people whose livelihood was severely affected by the spill. Many of these people were working on the water fishing, or in the service industry providing for the people who made their living from the pristine waters. When the fisherman aren't able to work they aren't the only ones hurt.. entire communities turned into ghost towns.
Exxon's screw up in hiring a drunk and cutting corners for single hull cost people dearly, and they deserve something, this is not just about hurting the poor oil company.

Not hailing from Alaska, I'm curious how this very Republican State will react to the fruits of its Conservative Republican support for Conservative Republican Supreme Court judicial appointments. Screwed out of your livelyhood by Big Energy interests? At least you got to vote against gay marraige, immigrants, flag burning or whatever you were told was really really important in your life.

None of you have read the news release I guess. Their NET INCOME was $11 billion. Net profit is closer to $5 billion. News sources do this ALL the time to inflate and exaggerate corporate "profits." Read between the lines guys!

Net income is WAY different than net profit. I've submitted the link for verification (pdf).

[www.exxonmobil.com]

@oeolycus: Oh no, they're only making $5 billion in profit?! However will they afford a $2.5 billion judgement of punitive damages?

@johnva: Don't forget that that's only one quarter too. I mean, they only took in $40 billion in 2007. And yes, I take public transportation every single day(unfortunately).

what's the point?

we're paying for it every time we put the key in the ignition. might as well cut it to zero and give it back to the general populace with lower gas prices.

@bustit22: Given that it's coming straight out of NET PROFITS after twenty years of litigation and fighting, I don't think the customer is going to be paying for it, because we already did.

Let me spell it out for you: We've been paying Exxon's legal fees for twenty years. They still manage to make enough profit to cover the awarded judgement amount in three weeks of sales.

Dense much?